Or perhaps they would be rolling in their graves at the idea of people trying to categorize music with subjective and arbitrary parameters, and then arguing about who's right and who's wrong.
or maybe they wont be rolling, cause their bodies would be decomposed and there is no after-life. lets stop all this hootananny.
X Is my all time favorite but they probably aren't what one would consider your traditional punk band. Probably most here are too young to remember or have even heard of them.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I wouldn't know I have been out of the country since 2000. I kicked myself hard over here, John Doe the former lead singer of X came to my little town in Norway and I didn't see the posters for it till 2 days after the show Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . That's what its like when you get all old and daddyfied and stop paying attention I guess Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As the gods would have it, Mudhoney just happens to be playing in my little corner of the world tommorrow at a festival here. So I'm thinking I can maybe trust your opinion on this one and go see them Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I registered just to say this: Sex Pistols Ramones Dead Kennedys (in no particular order). The three are in no way comparable and that is what makes punk great.
SideShow, What do you say about the claim that the sex pistols were manufactured to exploit the punk scene?
I also have to mention my friend's band, Deisel Sperm, who's bloody fiasco at the alcoholics anonymous biker bar will be forever remembered, not to mention their opiated and intoxicated appearance on public access cable TV.
Invert, No question the Pistols were a manufactured band. What band isn't manufactured to some degree? And back in the '70s, before CD technology, a band had to have some sort of commercial backing or nobody would hear them. The bands that the Pistols "exploited" may well have been better, but without the recording and distribution, who ever heard of them? My main point was about how different my three favoutite punk bands are/were (as compared to the "clonishness" of todays bands).
Those bands aren't all that different ... okay, so Biafra's lyrics are fairly intelligent, whereas the Ramones are relentlessly albeit intentionally stupid, and I suppose the Ramones are a little happier than the other two, but they don't sound that different. I mean, the Clash, regardless of whether or not they're punk, cover more musical territory on London Calling alone than the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, and the Dead Kennedys did together.
To each his/her own. I agree that the Clash were probably more talented, sophisticated, etc. than the three I mentioned. (Again, that was not my point.) But I never cared much for the Clash. Too much too say. I don't listen to music to learn anything. (Good line, though: You have the right to free speech, as long as you don't say too much".)
This is crazy. MINOR THREAT, people. That's by MY definition of what "punk" is / was. The term "punk" is something that everyone applies a very personal, limited standard to. It's what they first grasped as being "punk", but there's really no objective definition. It really doesn't exist; just like "grunge". It's hard to compare them, too. How do you compare the angriness / social commentary of Minor Threat to the "hey, let's go sniff some glue" outlook of The Ramones? You can't, but I love both bands anyway.
